More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     


    Dems in the legislature are a short time away from throwing the administration (last term anyway) under the bus and bailing on this debacle!

    watch!

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

    They totally defunded Obamacare when the GOP shut down government for that purpose.

     

     




     

    It's always the fault of someone else with this administration, they never accept responsibility for their mistakes.

    The Republicans had nothing to do with the developement of the website which is an unfunctioning cluster and now we find out it was designed by a company that Michele Obama's friend and classmate at Yale is a high level officer of. More insider cronyism like all of the green job projects run by Obama cronies subsidized by taxpayer money.

    This obamacare disaster will collapse under it's own weight  because it was ill concieved by one party rule nothing but a sham, a hugh tranfer of wealth to buy votes like every other entitlement.

    The policies of young women now projected to increase in cost 193 percent except they get free birth control pills saving 14 bucks a month. What a bargain! I'm delighted for all of those young women who re-elected this clown.

    The Republicans should just get the hell out of the way and let Obamacare burn and crash exposing Obama, Reid and Pelosi for being the snake oil salesman that they are.

    Now talk by Democrats of delaying the individual mandate which btw was the big hold up in the government shut down, a point that Republicans like Cruz was called a nut for accused of holding the government hostage for advocating the exact same thing.

    All Obama had to do was agree to delay the individual mandate (which will now in all likelyhood happen at some point) and the shutdown never would have happened.

    Anyone who thinks they can straighten this out is 6 weeks is only someone who was stupid enough to vote for this moron.

    The economy, jobs, Obamacare and relationships with all of our longtime allies a mess and all because of this man and his administration.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to macnh1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    employers are learning that their health insurance is going up 20-40% or more....the impact on jobs is going to be very bad.....told you so....

    [/QUOTE]

    Shouldn't you hold your "I told you so" until something actually becomes true?

    [/QUOTE]

    Is this the useless U-3 number?

    you do know that something like 96% of net the created this year are part time?

    You do know that?

    You do know that a large part of this is due to Obamacare?

    That's not conjecture, but fact. It follows that Obamacare will have a negative impact as it impacts group plans as well.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

    The U6 number looks exactly like the u3 number.

    The idea that 96% of jobs added this year are part-time is ridiculous.

    The ratio of part time to full time employees always spikes with recessions, and has dropped sharply.

    change in part-time workers and hours as a percentage of total employed

     

    So to summarize: wrong, absurd, repetitively absurd, unfounded, baseless, and conjecture based on all of the above.  Thanks Carnac, but I'll need to down a few bran muffins before I find a use for your predictions.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The point is not that there are more or fewer part time jobs in total. It is that there are more part time jobs, created from companies trying to avoid Obamacare, than there would have been without the law. It is just common sense. Try it, you'll like it.

    [/QUOTE]

    If that's true, it's a negligible amount, or we would see another spike on that chart.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to macnh1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    employers are learning that their health insurance is going up 20-40% or more....the impact on jobs is going to be very bad.....told you so....

    [/QUOTE]

    Shouldn't you hold your "I told you so" until something actually becomes true?

    [/QUOTE]

    Is this the useless U-3 number?

    you do know that something like 96% of net the created this year are part time?

    You do know that?

    You do know that a large part of this is due to Obamacare?

    That's not conjecture, but fact. It follows that Obamacare will have a negative impact as it impacts group plans as well.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

    The U6 number looks exactly like the u3 number.

    The idea that 96% of jobs added this year are part-time is ridiculous.

    The ratio of part time to full time employees always spikes with recessions, and has dropped sharply.

    change in part-time workers and hours as a percentage of total employed

     

    So to summarize: wrong, absurd, repetitively absurd, unfounded, baseless, and conjecture based on all of the above.  Thanks Carnac, but I'll need to down a few bran muffins before I find a use for your predictions.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The point is not that there are more or fewer part time jobs in total. It is that there are more part time jobs, created from companies trying to avoid Obamacare, than there would have been without the law. It is just common sense. Try it, you'll like it.

    [/QUOTE]

    If that's true, it's a negligible amount, or we would see another spike on that chart.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Your statement that the u-6 looks just like the U-3 is simply wrong.  But, that's ok.

    so, what's your point? Do you think millions of people losing their healthcare coverage in individual plans is acceptable collateral damage?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to macnh1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    employers are learning that their health insurance is going up 20-40% or more....the impact on jobs is going to be very bad.....told you so....

    [/QUOTE]

    Shouldn't you hold your "I told you so" until something actually becomes true?

    [/QUOTE]

    Is this the useless U-3 number?

    you do know that something like 96% of net the created this year are part time?

    You do know that?

    You do know that a large part of this is due to Obamacare?

    That's not conjecture, but fact. It follows that Obamacare will have a negative impact as it impacts group plans as well.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

    The U6 number looks exactly like the u3 number.

    The idea that 96% of jobs added this year are part-time is ridiculous.

    The ratio of part time to full time employees always spikes with recessions, and has dropped sharply.

    change in part-time workers and hours as a percentage of total employed

     

    So to summarize: wrong, absurd, repetitively absurd, unfounded, baseless, and conjecture based on all of the above.  Thanks Carnac, but I'll need to down a few bran muffins before I find a use for your predictions.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The point is not that there are more or fewer part time jobs in total. It is that there are more part time jobs, created from companies trying to avoid Obamacare, than there would have been without the law. It is just common sense. Try it, you'll like it.

    [/QUOTE]

    If that's true, it's a negligible amount, or we would see another spike on that chart.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Your statement that the u-6 looks just like the U-3 is simply wrong.  But, that's ok.

    so, what's your point? Do you think millions of people losing their healthcare coverage in individual plans is acceptable collateral damage?

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

    If anyone goes from full-time to part-time and therefore is not covered by their employer's health insurance, then they can enroll for an individual plan through Obamacare.

    The individual plans that are being dropped do not meet the minimum coverage requirements of Obamacare. But there will be individual plans available to them. More plans in more competitive places...less in the less competitive places such as parts of rural America.

    But anyway you look at it, people will have health insurance no matter their employment status.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to macnh1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    employers are learning that their health insurance is going up 20-40% or more....the impact on jobs is going to be very bad.....told you so....

    [/QUOTE]

    Shouldn't you hold your "I told you so" until something actually becomes true?

    [/QUOTE]

    Is this the useless U-3 number?

    you do know that something like 96% of net the created this year are part time?

    You do know that?

    You do know that a large part of this is due to Obamacare?

    That's not conjecture, but fact. It follows that Obamacare will have a negative impact as it impacts group plans as well.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

    The U6 number looks exactly like the u3 number.

    The idea that 96% of jobs added this year are part-time is ridiculous.

    The ratio of part time to full time employees always spikes with recessions, and has dropped sharply.

    change in part-time workers and hours as a percentage of total employed

     

    So to summarize: wrong, absurd, repetitively absurd, unfounded, baseless, and conjecture based on all of the above.  Thanks Carnac, but I'll need to down a few bran muffins before I find a use for your predictions.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The point is not that there are more or fewer part time jobs in total. It is that there are more part time jobs, created from companies trying to avoid Obamacare, than there would have been without the law. It is just common sense. Try it, you'll like it.

    [/QUOTE]

    If that's true, it's a negligible amount, or we would see another spike on that chart.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Your statement that the u-6 looks just like the U-3 is simply wrong.  But, that's ok.

    so, what's your point? Do you think millions of people losing their healthcare coverage in individual plans is acceptable collateral damage?

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

    If anyone goes from full-time to part-time and therefore is not covered by their employer's health insurance, then they can enroll for an individual plan through Obamacare.

    The individual plans that are being dropped do not meet the minimum coverage requirements of Obamacare. But there will be individual plans available to them. More plans in more competitive places...less in the less competitive places such as parts of rural America.

    But anyway you look at it, people will have health insurance no matter their employment status.

    [/QUOTE]

    You keep parroting this line about the individual plans being dropped because they don't meet the minimum requirements of Obamacare.  So, you think this is acceptable collatoral damage, to lose your coverage and be forced into a more expensive plan that doesn't meet the customer's requirement?

    I guess we can add rural citizens to the long list of collatoral damage casued by this crazy, big government solution to a nonexistent problem.

    Obamacare is bad news, and is hurting millions of formerly free American citizens.  Their own government is causing their insurance to be cancelled.  When will you see the light?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    solution to a nonexistent problem.

    [/QUOTE]


    Premiums going up 10% every year in the decade leading up to 2008 wasn't a problem?

    Employers dropping millions from coverage yearly wasn't a problem?

    People unable to buy insurance because they have a health condition for which they need health treatment wasn't a problem?

    The fact that the U.S. healthcare system was quickly becomming a complete failure to wasn't a problem?

     

     

     

    Oh right...I know..... F'em because free market yay job creators shut up.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    solution to a nonexistent problem.

    [/QUOTE]


    Premiums going up 10% every year in the decade leading up to 2008 wasn't a problem?

    Employers dropping millions from coverage yearly wasn't a problem?

    People unable to buy insurance because they have a health condition for which they need health treatment wasn't a problem?

    The fact that the U.S. healthcare system was quickly becomming a complete failure to wasn't a problem?

     

     

     

    Oh right...I know..... F'em because free market yay job creators shut up.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Your lack of clarity is instructive.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    Unable to answer...figures

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage


    Pointing out that the system was flawed does nothing to eleviate the fact that Dems put together a bill that is now law but, yet millions of people, through unions and corporations have been given "waivers" meaning they dont have to obey the law of the land now!

    Or they (congress and their aides) were given subsidies that normal people that make less money are not entitled to but, will pay in taxes a share for the congressional subsidies!

    Everyone else who is complaining (much like these unions and corps did before they got their waivers) are being to told "f-you" no more waivers or delays you just got to suck it up and btw our websites a piece of shlt that we didnt even take the time to ensure it was working and now even though your emoployers are dropping you we cant help you for another month or 6!!

    Dems own this P0S!!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Unable to answer...figures

    [/QUOTE]

    Why answer if all you are going to say is f'em?

     

    A more interesting question to ask might be:  So how is the ACA coing to address these issues?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]You keep parroting this line about the individual plans being dropped because they don't meet the minimum requirements of Obamacare.  So, you think this is acceptable collatoral damage, to lose your coverage and be forced into a more expensive plan that doesn't meet the customer's requirement?

     

    I guess we can add rural citizens to the long list of collatoral damage casued by this crazy, big government solution to a nonexistent problem.

    Obamacare is bad news, and is hurting millions of formerly free American citizens.  Their own government is causing their insurance to be cancelled.  When will you see the light?

    [/QUOTE]


     

    As usual, the wingnuts like to relate only half the story while ignoring the rest of reality.... especially the parts that show them to be on a quixotic jihad against people having health insurance.

    Those people who's plans are being 'dropped' are being offered better plans, with better benefits for less money.

    For some reason that really bothers the wingnuts, so much so that they refuse to acknowledge it.

    [/QUOTE]

    "Those people who's plans are being 'dropped' are being offered better plans, with better benefits for less money."

    That's not what the press is reporting.  What is being reported is dramatic increases everywhere, save for the five states that already jumped up rates through regulation.

    As far as better benefits:  Let me know how the morning after pill being mandated coverage benefits a 70 year old man.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Unable to answer...figures

    [/QUOTE]

    Why answer if all you are going to say is f'em?

     

    A more interesting question to ask might be:  So how is the ACA coing to address these issues?

    [/QUOTE]

    Premiums going up 10% every year in the decade leading up to 2008 wasn't a problem? Jury is still out on whether ACA will help with keeping premiums down. Still too early to know...we won't know the impact for a while

     

    Employers dropping millions from coverage yearly wasn't a problem? ACA prevents insurers from dropping members due to high cost 

    People unable to buy insurance because they have a health condition for which they need health treatment wasn't a problem? ACA got rid of pre-x so now these people with conditions are able to secure coverage.

     

    The fact that the U.S. healthcare system was quickly becomming a complete failure to wasn't a problem? I disagree that our healthcare systen was becoming a complete failure.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]You keep parroting this line about the individual plans being dropped because they don't meet the minimum requirements of Obamacare.  So, you think this is acceptable collatoral damage, to lose your coverage and be forced into a more expensive plan that doesn't meet the customer's requirement?

     

    I guess we can add rural citizens to the long list of collatoral damage casued by this crazy, big government solution to a nonexistent problem.

    Obamacare is bad news, and is hurting millions of formerly free American citizens.  Their own government is causing their insurance to be cancelled.  When will you see the light?

    [/QUOTE]


     

    As usual, the wingnuts like to relate only half the story while ignoring the rest of reality.... especially the parts that show them to be on a quixotic jihad against people having health insurance.

    Those people who's plans are being 'dropped' are being offered better plans, with better benefits for less money.

    For some reason that really bothers the wingnuts, so much so that they refuse to acknowledge it.

    [/QUOTE]

    "Those people who's plans are being 'dropped' are being offered better plans, with better benefits for less money."

    That's not what the press is reporting.  What is being reported is dramatic increases everywhere, save for the five states that already jumped up rates through regulation.

    As far as better benefits:  Let me know how the morning after pill being mandated coverage benefits a 70 year old man.

    [/QUOTE]

    The pill isn't the only benefit....but you know that.

    You don't think NOT being able to be dropped from coverage due to high claims is a benefit to someone who is sick? 

    You don't think getting rid of pre-x is a benefit to someone who has an ongoing illness?

    You don't think getting rid of lifetime max is a benefit to somone with say ongoing cancer treatments?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A more interesting question to ask might be:  So how is the ACA coing to address these issues?

    [/QUOTE]


     

    If it already hadn't been asked (by you) and answered (by everyone) roughly 10,001 times.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

    [/QUOTE]

    That's in reference to employer-based plans, not individual plans.

    The law's biggest influence was always intended to be the individual market.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's BS.  I don't know why you progressives cling to this distinction as if it makes a difference.

    the biggest impact of the law was supposed to put people onto health care. It is having the opposite effect.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you don't understand the differences between the group and individual health insurance markets...

    ...then it's little wonder you're so confused about what the law does and why.

    The fact that so many insurance plans don't meet the minimum basic standards of health care coverage points directly to the inefficiencies of the overall system.

    More people are gaining coverage; relatively few are losing it...and those who do lose it via layoffs will have an easier time getting their own comparable coverage.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    lol, it's s debacle that was ill planned and equivalent to a monkey banging a football with implementation and oversight.

    If, the flaws can be worked out before we get too far into the election year it, has a chance to keep some dem support. if, it goes past the first qtr. game over!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    lol, it's s debacle that was ill planned and equivalent to a monkey banging a football with implementation and oversight.

    If, the flaws can be worked out before we get too far into the election year it, has a chance to keep some dem support. if, it goes past the first qtr. game over!

    [/QUOTE]

    You say that like there's any kind of viable alternative.

    There ain't.

     

    And I'll save you some suspense...there will be "flaws" in the law 20 years from now, too.

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You keep parroting this line about the individual plans being dropped because they don't meet the minimum requirements of Obamacare.  So, you think this is acceptable collatoral damage, to lose your coverage and be forced into a more expensive plan that doesn't meet the customer's requirement?

    [/QUOTE]


    You prove once again you don't know what you're talking about.

     

    Millions of people who are self-employed could not get insurance through the individual market.

    Now they can, thanks in part to the ACA.  

    Those who could get coverage in that market were paying for nominal coverage, at best.  No preventive care. No guaranteed issue. No community rating.

    Now they'll get better coverage for a little bit more money thanks to a definable standard of coverage throughout the market.

    And the more people who buy into that market, premiums will stabilize, and so will costs, necause the risk will be spread out, just like it is at comanies who buy into group plans.

     

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

     

     

    That's in reference to employer-based plans, not individual plans.

    The law's biggest influence was always intended to be the individual market.

     

     



    That's BS.  I don't know why you progressives cling to this distinction as if it makes a difference.

    the biggest impact of the law was supposed to put people onto health care. It is having the opposite effect.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you don't understand the differences between the group and individual health insurance markets...

    ...then it's little wonder you're so confused about what the law does and why.

    The fact that so many insurance plans don't meet the minimum basic standards of health care coverage points directly to the inefficiencies of the overall system.

    More people are gaining coverage; relatively few are losing it...and those who do lose it via layoffs will have an easier time getting their own comparable coverage.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I understand the differences fine, but your positioning it as if Obama didn't mean what he said.  Heck, even Jay Carney has given up on this line of thought that you still cling to, bitterly, I might add.

    The fact that these plans met the basic standards BEFORE Obamacare ought to clue you in that Obamacare is a train wreck.  People were by and large happy with their insurance before Obama larded on coverage they don't need at costs they can't afford.

    I mean, get a clue.

    And, the silent implication that employer based plans are not impacted is patently false.  Employers will pay fines for Cadillac plans.  Peer out your high rise window.  Look around.  Nearly everyone in everone of those skyscrapers is on a cadillac plan.  Unons are on cadillac plans, whihc is why so many of them have exemptions. 

    Cost is also impacted, as mandated coverage applies egually to individual and group plans, driving costs up.

    Finally, consider the structure of employer fines.  it will be cheaper for employers to toss people onto the exhcanges than to continue coverage.

     

    But still, I ask, only because you bring it up:  What is the number of people who need to be collatoral damage, i.e .lose their existing plans and doctors, in order for what ever constituency Obamacare was designed for is staisfied?  How much collatoral damage is acceptable to you?

    Apparently it is OK for millions to suffer in order to make free health care availble to the few.  If that was your goal all along, then we never needed Obamacare in the first place.  We only needed to expand medicaid.

     

    I'll save you the time of looking it up.  here is thhe estimate for how many will lose coverage in this first phase of Obamacare:

    According to health policy expert Bob Laszewski, roughly 16 million Americans will lose their current plans because of Obamacare:

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    lol, it's s debacle that was ill planned and equivalent to a monkey banging a football with implementation and oversight.

    If, the flaws can be worked out before we get too far into the election year it, has a chance to keep some dem support. if, it goes past the first qtr. game over!

    [/QUOTE]

    You say that like there's any kind of viable alternative.

    There ain't. 

    And I'll save you some suspense...there will be "flaws" in the law 20 years from now, too.

     [/QUOTE]

    The old system of not forcing anyone to do anything and not depending on healthy young people to go to a borke sight to sign up.

    We need leadership in either party to go back to the drawing board and write a bill that makes sense and that everyone can get behind and NO ONE gets waivers!

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You keep parroting this line about the individual plans being dropped because they don't meet the minimum requirements of Obamacare.  So, you think this is acceptable collatoral damage, to lose your coverage and be forced into a more expensive plan that doesn't meet the customer's requirement?

    [/QUOTE]


    You prove once again you don't know what you're talking about.

     

    Millions of people who are self-employed could not get insurance through the individual market.

    Now they can, thanks in part to the ACA.  

    Those who could get coverage in that market were paying for nominal coverage, at best.  No preventive care. No guaranteed issue. No community rating.

    Now they'll get better coverage for a little bit more money thanks to a definable standard of coverage throughout the market.

    And the more people who buy into that market, premiums will stabilize, and so will costs, necause the risk will be spread out, just like it is at comanies who buy into group plans.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    "Now they can, thanks in part to the ACA.  "

    But, sadly, they can't afford it.

    Open your eyes.  Obamacare isn't working.  We have been telling you this from the jump, and you said we were wrong.  now, it's not working, and you cling to the same old talking points which are not materializing.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    lol, it's s debacle that was ill planned and equivalent to a monkey banging a football with implementation and oversight.

    If, the flaws can be worked out before we get too far into the election year it, has a chance to keep some dem support. if, it goes past the first qtr. game over!

    [/QUOTE]

    You say that like there's any kind of viable alternative.

    There ain't. 

    And I'll save you some suspense...there will be "flaws" in the law 20 years from now, too.

     [/QUOTE]

    The old system of not forcing anyone to do anything and not depending on healthy young people to go to a borke sight to sign up.

    We need leadership in either party to go back to the drawing board and write a bill that makes sense and that everyone can get behind and NO ONE gets waivers!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The old system was cleaner.

    the new sytem, Obamacare, is just a socialst dre-distribution scheme that is bound to fail.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You keep parroting this line about the individual plans being dropped because they don't meet the minimum requirements of Obamacare.  So, you think this is acceptable collatoral damage, to lose your coverage and be forced into a more expensive plan that doesn't meet the customer's requirement?

    [/QUOTE]


    You prove once again you don't know what you're talking about.

     

    Millions of people who are self-employed could not get insurance through the individual market.

    Now they can, thanks in part to the ACA.  

    Those who could get coverage in that market were paying for nominal coverage, at best.  No preventive care. No guaranteed issue. No community rating.

    Now they'll get better coverage for a little bit more money thanks to a definable standard of coverage throughout the market.

    And the more people who buy into that market, premiums will stabilize, and so will costs, necause the risk will be spread out, just like it is at comanies who buy into group plans.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    "Now they can, thanks in part to the ACA.  "

    But, sadly, they can't afford it.

    Open your eyes.  Obamacare isn't working.  We have been telling you this from the jump, and you said we were wrong.  now, it's not working, and you cling to the same old talking points which are not materializing.

    [/QUOTE]

    What specficially (besides the web site) isn't working in regards to ACA? 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: More People Losing coverage under Obamacare than acquiring coverage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:


    Obamacare, is just a socialst dre-distribution scheme

    Money and b!tches for all his dawgs?

     

     

    This is getting stranger all the time.

     

Share